Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1887-12-24

uOWil Ill the constitution, sldl' vi
federal, or both. And if decision
is open to criticism, though in accord
with unconstitutional requirements
or inhibitions, then it dcyoIycs upon
the people to exercise their authority
and say what the rule Of conduct,
law, policy, Interpretation, etc., shall
be in prescribing, by what We may
call popular legislation, such rules as
may meet their views IN those mat
tiers.
These Introductory remarks are
proper in view of an article dealing
with the decision Of the United States
Supreme Court in the Anarchists
case. From that decision the critic
-Xcno, in the Chicago LaJ0r En-
qUirer-secms to have gained the IN
formation that the first ten amend
mcnts to the federal constitution are
limitations, not upon state, but upon
the federal government, and is start
led that such should be the law,
which impression upon "Ieno" would
prove that he has been sound asleep
for half II century, and but lately
entering the scene Of actual life with
a scream of despair,
Ieno says:
But Judges 40 rs they please, and
when appeal is made to the highest au
thority, the answer is that the constitu-
ton is mistaken; that all but the first ten
amendments is the supreme law of the
land; these are second to state laws, and
whatever good is in them cannot be
awaited of if the accused failed to save
the point
Again II mistake! An appeal to the
Federal Supreme Court Is not mat
ter of right. "hc party applying for
the issuance Of II writ Of error must
show atfirmativeIy that he has set up
and claimed rights guaranteed by the
constitution Of the United States. and
that such rights have been denied.
This is IL jurisdictional fact. the alb
scncc of which will defeat the right
to be heard. Such is the law, not
since the final disposition Of the
Anarchists case, but since the act Of
'lTS9, as amended (Reyised Statutes
y. S. Of 1878, section 709), and many
decisions had under its provisions.
Is it right to blame the judge for
Zcno's ignorance of the law? As
numbers Of newspapers let workmen's
advocates appear to be criminals, so
Zcno makes knavcs of the interpre-
tators Of law, neither bringing any
evidence in support, but either hav-
ing means to find out the contrary.
Referring the interested reader to
Cooley on Principles Of Constitu-
tionaI Law, and the decisions in
question published in Vol. S of the
Supreme Court Reporter, pages 2l-
80, | venture to say that the last de-
cision in the Anarchists case could
not have resulted differently without
being against law and precedent,
conccdimg that in this case the latter
might have subscrved the ends of
| justice, But | would not trust any
number Of men with Il discretion that
places them above the law.
1t should be borne in mind that
our judicial system reserves the de-
cision Of questions Of fact to the jury,
and such Of law to the determination
of men learned in law, and that the
law depends upon the facts us found
by the jury.
The jury is chosen from the body
of the people by officers intrusred
with that duty by popular election.
Will Zeno, whom | presume to be a
citizen of Illinois, blame citizens OF
other states for his and his fellow
mems neglect to see to it that true
and good men have to select and
summon jurors? hope by this time
so called Anarchists have found out
what grieyous mistake they made in
letting thcir.adversaries attend to this
matter. If so, why do they not blame
themselves? And are the judiciary
in Illinois not elected by the people
And whose fault is it that preiudiccd
men, if any, are sitting on the bench:
1t would seem the ballot box is vel
worth something if used, and prop
crly used.
An enlightened public as a rule
will have enlightened and humane
jurors. What have our friends in
Chicago done in this respect? Did